single moms should surrender their kids to Christian homes

[doggie]

the usual two parent Christians are great people and should raise everyone elses children because god made them wonderful argument.

the stupidity of this idiot is hard o even measure.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/27 ... kids-land/

what seems like a single step away from advocating that we take kids away from their single moms by force, a conservative Christian leader is urging them to give up their children voluntarily.

A conservative Christian leader says single moms should surrender their kids to Christian homes with two parents.

Right Wing Watch reports that Southern Baptist leader Richard Land is calling on single mothers to put up their kids for adoption so that Christian households with two parents can raise them.

In a November 23rd article published on The Christian Post, Land urges single mothers across the nation to stop being selfish and hand their kids over to good Christian parents so they can be raised properly, the way he thinks God intended.

“Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home,†Land claims. “A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother’s and the baby’s economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways. If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have… Adoption allows the mother to give her child both a mother and a father who will love and cherish the child.â€

[Mela99]

Huh... so are they suggesting that they're willing to adopt all the babies who might have been aborted?

[doggie]

am sure the duggers would like several of those babies or single mom kids. more the better. because we all know they are great parents.

[Emkay]

I have four words for this guy: Larry and Carri Williams

[doggie]

This idiot is like any GOP idiot have all these grand ideas but no clue what it would take to make it happen. and of course he Whole of they are christian they are great and moral crap that Christians tend to believe.

[precious_one]

Why doesn't his craziness apply to single fathers? I know several single dads.

[doggie]

Why doesn't his craziness apply to single fathers? I know several single dads.

no such thing in fundie land. just like there are only gay men and other stupid.

[linnea27]

A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. 

I love how fundies go on about "trusting god" with their fertility because children are blessings and he never makes mistakes, and yet when he blesses a single woman with a child, her "accepting" that blessing is now against god's wishes. huh?

[snuggles911]

He's not alone in his opinion. Sunshine Mary suggested that the children of single moms be handed over to two-parent families a while ago. Strangely, Sunshine does not believe in birth control. I'm not sure who would adopt all of these kids if it were suddenly outlawed.

[Mama Mia]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to adopt. That doesn't mean it's the right thing for the mother ( or father) or the child.

More money does not equal a better life.

[EmiGirl]

am sure the duggers would like several of those babies or single mom kids. more the better. because we all know they are great parents.

No they wouldn't because they don't want to deal with the sins of the other parents.

[Jana814]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to adopt. That doesn't mean it's the right thing for the mother ( or father) or the child.

More money does not equal a better life.

Agree!!

[FJismyheadship]

They are not thinking of the children in this case. They would be devestated! Children should be with their mother (or father) if said parent is capable of properly caring for their child.

[doggie]

They are not thinking of the children in this case. They would be devestated! Children should be with their mother (or father) if said parent is capable of properly caring for their child.

They are thing of the children because children naturally want two Christian parents it is in their DNA. This is the type of logic that bounces around in all the unused critical thinking parts of their brains.

[debrand]

In general, the more people who love and nurture a child, the better. There are studies that show that the presence of a grandmother has a positive impact on a child and yet no one advocates that nuclear families without living grandparents have their children given to couple's whose parents are still alive.

[BravaAmica]

I have four words for this guy: Larry and Carri Williams

QFT

[ILoveJellybeans]

That's horrible.

Imagine being a kid who has lost their dad, and now theyre going to lose their mom and go and live with strangers because single moms cant be parents. Scary thought-does this apply to women who are single at the time of their child's birth, or any single mother at all-whether their husband is abusive, is cheating on the mother with 20 different people, is in jail for murder, ran off out of town with a much younger woman he met on the internet and left her with the kids, or loved her very much but sadly died...

Theres nothing wrong with single parents. It doesn't take two people to raise a kid, or a man and a woman-it takes love.

As well as breaking up millions of families and taking children away from parents who love them, care for them and are giving them a decent life, their idea would also screw up the foster care/adoption system. There is already way more kids in foster care than families who are willing to adopt, and adding millions more would mean that there would be even less children who are going to get adopted. It would also affect the standards of foster care, as there would be so few foster parents compared to the number of kids, they would have to lower their standards for who is allowed to foster kids, or encourage foster parents to squeeze more children into their houses.

It would also cause more women who would normally want to keep their child to want an abortion, because they know they would never be allowed to keep their baby anyway. If this wasn't allowed, it may cause more people to conceal their pregnancy from others and abandon or kill their babies out of fear, or nearly kill themselves attempting to abort illegally.

It would also mean that more women would be forced to put up with domestic violence because theyre worried that if they leave they will lose the kids as well, meaning more women would be killed by abusive husbands. This would also mean more children growing up witnessing abuse, or being abused themselves, but I guess they think that's okay as long as there is a mom and a dad, but the mom on her own raising children in a non abusive environment isn't?

[cindyluvs24]

Well, there are plenty of kids available here in NJ thru the state. I don't see loads of "good Christians" lining up to adopt. I guess only snow white chubby infants need apply.

[Jana814]

They are not thinking of the children in this case. They would be devestated! Children should be with their mother (or father) if said parent is capable of properly caring for their child.

Agree!

[doggie]

I love how fundies go on about "trusting god" with their fertility because children are blessings and he never makes mistakes, and yet when he blesses a single woman with a child, her "accepting" that blessing is now against god's wishes. huh?

yes god loves impregnating 9 10 11 12 year olds too. the poorest of the poor and let their children die of starvation.

[doggie]

Well, there are plenty of kids available here in NJ thru the state. I don't see loads of "good Christians" lining up to adopt. I guess only snow white chubby infants need apply.

or imported babies so they don't have to pass home checks and fitness checks. but hey all that can be waved with a letter from a pastor or a self proclaimed christian leader.

[anjulibai]

I'm guessing they'd have to force a lot of families to take children in.

What a wonderful environment to grow up in, a family where you aren't wanted.

[BravaAmica]

or imported babies so they don't have to pass home checks and fitness checks. but hey all that can be waved with a letter from a pastor or a self proclaimed christian leader.

There is another solution. Hear me out because it's quite radical. What if... what if... single mothers (well, all families/people, but for the sake of this thread, we'll stick with single mothers). what if single mothers had, say, a childcare stipend so they could work AND afford childcare? Or paid sick days so they wouldn't go broke if she or the kids got sick? Or access to affordable (perhaps even single payer!) health care for her-including free birth control- and the kids? Or access to job training/education that included childcare? You know, stuff that actually helped them? Wouldn't that be easier than taking their babies? It's crazy, I know. But that's my idea.

But maybe these people think it's easier to take someone's child and raise it themselves, rather than ensuring all families were taken care of. Oh, wait, we're discussing a subculture that raises their children like a farmer breeds and trains livestock.

[Rachel333]

I hate the idea that kids are automatically better off with rich parents/two parents/Christian parents/American parents. You see those attitudes a lot with adoption. "Well, yes those kids have parents, but they're poor and Ethiopian/Guatemalan/Vietnamese/whatever, so they're better off being adopted." And there are unfortunately a lot of Christian adoptive parents who think that just being Christian means they'll be better parents. Just because you don't fit all those criteria doesn't mean your kids can't have a good life. I'm not anti-adoption at all, but it shouldn't be a first resort. Let's try supporting families, including single mothers, first.

[smittykins]

There is another solution. Hear me out because it's quite radical. What if... what if... single mothers (well, all families/people, but for the sake of this thread, we'll stick with single mothers). what if single mothers had, say, a childcare stipend so they could work AND afford childcare? Or paid sick days so they wouldn't go broke if she or the kids got sick? Or access to affordable (perhaps even single payer!) health care for her-including free birth control- and the kids? Or access to job training/education that included childcare? You know, stuff that actually helped them? Wouldn't that be easier than taking their babies? It's crazy, I know. But that's my idea.

I can hear it now: "But-but-but...that's *rewarding bad behavior*! There's no incentive for her to keep her legs closed until the minister says 'I now pronounce you man and wife' if you give her all that!" :roll: :angry-banghead:

(Except widows, I hope)